Why Definitions Are Important

Pretty much everyone agrees that if two people love each other, that's a good thing.
I agree with that sentiment as well.

The problem is about what marriage is. Most people would probably say that marriage is what you get when two people love each other. It is a public commitment, an outward sign of the love they share with the rest of their community. Does that sound about right?

Wrong!

That's not what marriage is.

The support and status that marriage entails is not a societal bonus for falling in love and agreeing to make a relationship lasting. That is not, of course, to say that love and romance are not an important part of marriage. But they are not the reason it has special status. If romance were the reason for supporting marriage, there would be no grounds for differentiating which relationships should be included and which should not. But that is not and never has been the nature of marriage.

Marriage is vital as a framework within which children can be brought up by a man and woman. The term describes that state, the basic unit of family. It describes that foundational building block of a man and a woman and children.

Not all marriages, of course, involve child-raising. And there are also, for that matter, same-sex couples already raising children. But the reality is that marriages tend towards child-raising and same-sex partnerships do not.

Why should a gay relationship be treated the same way as a marriage, despite this fundamental difference?

A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures. This is what we all, rightly, aspire to. Especially those of us in the business of raising the next generation. In no way am I attempting to cast aspersions on other families, but rather to underscore the importance of marriage as the institution at the bedrock of our society. This is not about denying anyone anything, it is about calling a dog a dog and a cat a cat.

This is why the demand for gay marriage goes doubly wrong. It is not a demand for marriage to be extended to gay people – it is a demand for marriage to be redefined. The understanding of marriage as an institution that exists and is supported for the sake of strong families changes to an understanding of marriage as merely the end-point of romance. This is only possible through the action of people who don't seem to understand what marriage is in the first place, or show no respect for it or its value. If gay couples are considered equally eligible for marriage, even though gay relationships do not tend towards child-raising and cannot by definition give a child a mother and a father, the crucial understanding of what marriage is actually mainly for has been discarded. Yes this merely constitutes a further down-grading of marriage and is nothing new, but is that what we want? Can it serve to do anything except realise a stigmatisation of gay married couples, who are not in a proper marriage, but engaged in a second rate sham?

What gay marriage amounts to is the kind of marriage that puts adults before children. Surely that's just selfish? Many gay people I know consider this is far too high a price to pay simply for the tokenism of a government trying to convince voters it has a progressive side by treating opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships identically. And it is a token gesture. Isn’t it common sense, after all, to treat different situations differently?

The government's shambolic handling of this matter leaves me frankly in despair. It is clear that the consultation process' only aim was to shroud a shockingly undemocratic exercise in a cloak of false legitimacy. What is clear is that the Government intends to redefine marriage despite opposition from the overwhelming majority of respondents to its proposals. As Archbishop Vincent Nichols and Archbishop Peter Smith explain:

"The government has chosen to ignore the views of over 600,000 people who signed a petition calling for the current definition of marriage to stay, and we are told legislation to change the definition of marriage will now come to Parliament."

There were 228,000 individual responses to the consultation. 53% – fewer than 121,000 – of them said same-sex couples ought to be able to marry. Four times as many people contacted the Government to support the traditional understanding of marriage rather than to overturn it: the Coalition for Marriage’s petition alone bore 509,800 signatures when it was submitted. It now bears more than 620,000.

As the Archbishops point out in their statement, Parliamentary process has been scorned in the rush to redefine marriage:

"There was no electoral mandate in any manifesto; no mention in the Queen’s speech; no serious or thorough consultation through a Green or White paper, and a constant shifting of policy before even the government response to the consultation was published today."

The Government seems to think it is only a matter of religious objection to their redefinition, which is hugely patronising in my opinion. Simplistically, they intend to introduce a ‘quadruple lock’ to protect religious institutions from being compelled to act against their principles in connection with the proposed legislation. As Archbishop Peter Smith points out:

The prime minister is against statutory regulation of the press because he fears that a subsequent Parliament might amend the Act.If future Parliaments cannot be trusted to respect the freedom of the press, can they truly be trusted to uphold these "quadruple locks" that supposedly protect religious freedom?

It's a good point isn't it? I don't accept it as re-assurance even for a second. I have no doubt that there is a fight coming for those who consider it impossible for two men or two women to marry. There are all kinds of constitutional and human rights problems raised by this madness. I am no expert in the constitution I will leave that to others. Certainly there's a good look at it on the Catholic Voices blog and Cranmer certainly knows a lot more about it than I do.

The Government states that “At its heart, marriage is about two people who love each other making a formal commitment to each other,” but it is difficult to see why such a private commitment should be a public concern: the state is not in the business of legitimating private relationships, and cares about marriage purely as a matter of public good.

British law has long recognised that marriage provides a uniquely stable and balanced environment in which children can be born and raised, protecting it as the one public institution that exists to uphold the principle that every child should – ideally – be raised with the love of a mother and a father.

It is telling, therefore, that the Government’s 47-page response devotes just three paragraphs to children, relegating them to the peripheral ‘wider issues’, and rejecting outright the view of 84pc of British people, as found by a ComRes poll for Catholic Voices this March, that children do best in life when raised by a mother and a father in a stable and loving relationship.

Regardless of governmental cynicism, it is indisputable that many support this project for the best of motives. Unfortunately, such support is misconceived: the introduction of same-sex marriage would not correct any injustices, couples in civil partnerships already having the same rights as married couples, and can only be brought about if British law decrees children to be at best peripheral to marriage and the state to have an interest in regulating people’s private lives.

I can't see this as anything other than a huge mistake by the Government, embroiling themselves in an argument that affects 1% of the population yet attacks two areas which are hugely important for the majority of the voting public: Politics and religion. They've done this in a manner which seems to have alienated just about everyone. Let's face it, homosexuality is largely a left-leaning issue, so even those who are ardently behind the Government's proposals will most likely vote Labour next time around. I'm aghast. The Government is a disaster. Let alone the fact that they should stop prodding wasps nests and get on with sorting out the economy. Unbelievable tom-foolery. What a joke.

Popular posts from this blog

The legend reads:<<Oi Frankie, you have emasculated Congregations, suspended priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, ignored Cardinals...But where is your mercy?>>

Christians faced with the ravages of Bergoglio...Roma e' tappezzata - Rome is carpeted!

A source told me that the posters near the Vatican have already been covered up; but they ARE ALL OVER ROME!!

Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Diff., II, 279-280

Here I am led to interpose a remark;—it is plain, then, that there are those near, or with access, to the Holy Father, who would, if they could, go much further in the way of assertion and command, than the divine Assistentia, which overshadows him, wills or permits; so {280} that his acts and his words on doctrinal subjects must be carefully scrutinised and weighed, before we can be sure what really he has said. Utterances which must be received as comin…

A few of days ago I posted about a new book called The Dictator Pope which has been really causing a stir as it claims to be the inside story of the most tyrannical and unprincipled papacy of modern times.

Now this was first posted on One Peter Five, which I love, but some criticise because it is a site critical of progressive catholic attitudes and modernism. Anyway some people these days dismiss certain sources because they tend to contradict their own agenda. I don't, as I have said here numerous times before, we are all parts of the body of Christ and that body has many parts (cf. 1 Cor 12). If I agree with everything someone says, I'm probably reading my own blog. We all get it wrong sometimes.

Anyway, I was concerned initially that this would be seen as a diatribe against the pope with an agenda. This would make the contents easier to dismiss.Almost read “The Dictator Pope”, of course it is all libelous gossip, the Church is not a dictatorship, is it? — raymond blake (@r…

Vaticanista Marco Tossati reports that even the faithless men who put Pope Francis on the throne of St. Peter are losing patience with his laissez faire, "make a mess" approach to being pope.

In his article on the AAS inclusion of the Buenos Aires directives, he remarks:
A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.” News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.Gloria.tv reports that this is most likely the Argentinian Leonardo Sandri, the…